State Bank of India vs M/s S. K. Rice Mill

R. D. Khare, Chairperson

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the DRT, Dehradun in S.A. No. 116/2022, whereby the Tribunal below has held that after issuance of the recovery certificate and the recovery proceedings are in process, the respondent-Bank has not taken any action under the SARFAESI Act in this matter.

It is argued that the appellant-Bank can proceed for its expeditious recovery even when the recovery proceedings are in process. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Transcore Vs. Union of India and another, 2007 AIR (SC) 712 and has argued that the Bank can file both the proceedings for recovery under the SARFAESI Act as well as under the RDB Act. The learned counsel has further relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s Ace Media Advertisers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda and others, 2009 AIR (Allahabad) 120.

The record shows that the appellant-Bank has been pursuing the recovery proceedings also, in which the recovery certificate has been issued and the process for recovery is already going on, but for the reason best known, the Bank had also initiated the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act. The facts of both the judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant are entirely different to the facts of the present case, therefore, the same are of no avail.

In the present case, the recovery certificate has already been issued and execution of the same is in advance stage, therefore, the Bank should pursue the execution proceeding in order to expedite the recovery of the amount due instead of initiating the proceeding afresh under the SARFAESI Act, which would stall the recovery proceedings otherwise the recovery would frustrate. Therefore, the Bank cannot be permitted to scuttle the proceedings of the O.A., especially when the recovery certificate is issued and the execution process is in advance stage, by initiating the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act at their whims and fantasy. Admittedly, there is no bar in initiating the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, but it should be done at the right stage to expedite the recovery. Such process cannot be used to scuttle the recovery proceedings, when the recovery certificate is already issued and the execution proceeding is in advance stage before the Recovery Officer.

In view of the above, the appellate-bank has failed to make out a good case for interference of this Appellate Tribunal in the order impugned passed by the Tribunal below. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.